Obama - If You've got a business, you didn't build that.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT
 

DrVornoff:

So what are these programs that Obama should attempt to pay for out of pocket?

For starters, Social Security. I'd like to see the cut off greatly increased. I think they stop taking contributions at $80K. I'd like to see that bumped up to $1 million... if you cap it at all. I'd like it taken from all income including capital gains. Were that done, it would be relatively single rate, there would be no dodging it, and I think Social Securities solvency issues would no longer be relevant. Never going to happen though.

And like the moyal says (repeating myself here) you can cut 10% off anything, including our military.

If Romney is elected, lets see how he does. Don't raise taxes, don't increase the deficit. If he is like other Republicans, he is likely to disappoint, but at least he is making promises. I don't get that from the Left.

What constitutes that share? How to define fair? That's a hard one.

We already have fair. We have a progressive tax system. But nearly 48% of the wealth in the entire world is in off-shore tax shelters controlled by less than a hundredth of a percentage point of the world's population. That doesn't suggest to me that the mega-rich whom the Republicans claim to be defending from socialism are not playing fair like ordinary people like me.

"Taxes are for little people."
-Leona Helmsley

Ain't that the truth!

EDIT: My point, conservatives in theory are willing to pay their fair share but disagree what that is. For the record, raising the limit on Social Security is not my idea but my accountants. She makes me look like Phil Donahue.

In theory. The trouble is that wealthy are already gaming the system.

That is a big problem for me as well.

arbane:

So we're back to "OBAMA HAETS RICH PEOPLE!"?

Oh, no no no, he LOVES HIS rich people. I think I've posted words to that effect many times.

I guess you missed the part where guys like Bill Gates's dad and Warren Buffet have gone on the record saying "YES TAX US MORE"?

Exactly. And I don't buy it. You should be able to do a search and find many examples of people writing that what they (people like Warren Buffet) really mean is, "leave shelters for us, but smash with new taxes those up and coming, unconnected upstarts that are challenging us. Raise Joe the Plumber's taxes."

Gorfias:

He'll need to go after Joe the Plumber for them when he "spreads the wealth."

Does Joe The Plumber make more than one million dollars a year? (If he does, the FBI might want to take a closer look at his 'plumbing' business....)

I'm guessing you're not really writing there are no well connected, well heeled upstarts out there earning that kind of money that W.B. et. al. are worried about.

No, Gorfias. What will get you thrown out of the Conservative Club is daring to suggest that Social Security isn't an evil plot to ENSLAVE feeble old people to the CRUSHING HAND of Big Government Stalinism when they could be investing all that sweet sweet loot in the TOTALLY SAFE stock market which can only every go up.

And if I die before collecting Social Security? I pass none of it to my kids. Had some of it, at my discretion and direction, under Bush 2, been placed in the Stock Market, I would have something to pass on. I really don't think that's a bad thing. I also have to think that the down turn, which has since turned around, wouldn't have been as bad or deep. Full disclosure though: I think the Market's real value is near 1/2 its current amount, but Boomers have to put their money somewhere. When they retire, they'll need it back, even at deflated costs.

And most importantly, at least Bush 2 acknowledged a problem and was trying to do something here, while Obama is fiddling.

relevant part is at the end. No plans, but we don't like yours. Awesome (sarcastic).

Gorfias:

If Romney is elected, lets see how he does. Don't raise taxes, don't increase the deficit. If he is like other Republicans, he is likely to disappoint, but at least he is making promises. I don't get that from the Left.

romeny is making vague statements along the party lines, cut taxes and decrease spending. he has not actually shown how he is going to do that.

he has claimed to be able to cut income taxes by 20% across the board and to make it revenue neutral by getting rid of loopholes and deductions, but has refused to say which ones. as i linked to early, some think tanks have already gone through the numbers. to make it neutral 95% of the population ends up paying more tax while a person like romney, earning 20 million, would get a 1.8 million dollar tax break.

btw this is a decent outline of what changes in the taxes under obama

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-tax-cuts-20120728,0,5136053.story

the GOP are rallying hard against it now because they know that in the future the democrats are holding pocket aces. assuming the democrats keep their new found balls what will happen is if the republicans refuse to compromise and raise the taxes on the top 2% of earners the democrats will let the bush tax cuts for everyone expire, they will then reintroduce the tax cuts but cut out the top 2%. the republicans will either be forced to show their true colours and refuse a tax cut to 98% of the population because their millionaire mates dont get it or let it pass. either way the democrats get what they want and the republicans either look like they caved or are pure evil

Paya Chin:
summary: "to all indie developers, you didn't make that game... EA did. now bow to your overlord."

I have to ask: Did you think that through at all or did it just sound good?

Gorfias:

If Romney is elected, lets see how he does. Don't raise taxes, don't increase the deficit. If he is like other Republicans, he is likely to disappoint, but at least he is making promises. I don't get that from the Left.

Yeah, leftists actually comprehend basic math.

Gorfias:

arbane:

I guess you missed the part where guys like Bill Gates's dad and Warren Buffet have gone on the record saying "YES TAX US MORE"?

Exactly. And I don't buy it. You should be able to do a search and find many examples of people writing that what they (people like Warren Buffet) really mean is, "leave shelters for us, but smash with new taxes those up and coming, unconnected upstarts that are challenging us. Raise Joe the Plumber's taxes."

9_9

Okay, every time you invoke "Joe The Plumber", I can't help thinking you don't WANT anyone to actually do anything but make fun of you.

If you seriously think Republicans are the champions of the Little Guy, or even the Medium-Sized Guy, or anyone but the Biggest Guys In The Room, I'd say you haven't been paying ANY attention to their actual policies. But as you've already made it clear, you prefer Lip Service to actual things that might work.

Gorfias:

He'll need to go after Joe the Plumber for them when he "spreads the wealth."

Does Joe The Plumber make more than one million dollars a year? (If he does, the FBI might want to take a closer look at his 'plumbing' business....)

I'm guessing you're not really writing there are no well connected, well heeled upstarts out there earning that kind of money that W.B. et. al. are worried about.

Actually, I was making a joke about the Mob.

What makes you think that guys like Buffet need The Crushing Power of the Fascist 1% extra taxation to squash these alleged upstart tycoons?

Gorfias:

And if I die before collecting Social Security? I pass none of it to my kids. Had some of it, at my discretion and direction, under Bush 2, been placed in the Stock Market, I would have something to pass on.

Sigh.

1: I was unaware that the existence of Social Security precluded all other investments that could be passed down.

2: You really didn't pay a goddamned bit of attention to what happened to the stock-market in 2007-2008, did you?

Gorfias:

I really don't think that's a bad thing. I also have to think that the down turn, which has since turned around, wouldn't have been as bad or deep.

Oh, you did pay SOME attention. Just not enough, apparently.

Yes, you have to believe this. That does not make it true. We tried the 'too big to fail' plan, and all this would have resulted in was EVEN BIGGER bailouts for you to whine about.

Gorfias:
Full disclosure though: I think the Market's real value is near 1/2 its current amount, but Boomers have to put their money somewhere. When they retire, they'll need it back, even at deflated costs.

In this country, we used to have marvelous things called 'pensions' and 'job security'. They are now extinct, hunted to exhaustion by CEOs looking for innovative ways to raise stock prices by fucking over employees.

reonhato:

btw this is a decent outline of what changes in the taxes under obama

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-tax-cuts-20120728,0,5136053.story

Given that I was screamed at for thinking Obamacare would cost money, and we now know what I already thought, it's a tax, even if your link is the best budget of all time, I doubt I can trust it. I thought Mr. Read My Lips was awesome too. I had to laugh when his next campaign slogan was, "I'll never do that again!" I did not vote for him.

I'll take a look at your link ASAP anyway.

arbane:

Gorfias:

If I die before collecting Social Security? I pass none of it to my kids. Had some of it, at my discretion and direction, under Bush 2, been placed in the Stock Market, I would have something to pass on.

1: I was unaware that the existence of Social Security precluded all other investments that could be passed down.

Irrelevant. My money, let me do as much as possible with it as I like. Under your plan, I have less discretion.

ITMT: I may have snipped someone. The left wants the rich guys tax breaks to expire. I write I don't as, people like Warrren Buffet will still pay less than his secretary % wise. We need real reform

Gorfias:

reonhato:

btw this is a decent outline of what changes in the taxes under obama

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-tax-cuts-20120728,0,5136053.story

Given that I was screamed at for thinking Obamacare would cost money, and we now know what I already thought, it's a tax, even if your link is the best budget of all time, I doubt I can trust it. I thought Mr. Read My Lips was awesome too. I had to laugh when his next campaign slogan was, "I'll never do that again!" I did not vote for him.

I'll take a look at your link ASAP anyway.

you do realise that no matter what they call it, it still costs exactly the same right. a $50 fee costs the same as a $50 tax. the fact that the SC called it a tax changes absolutely nothing about the bill, it still saves a helluva lot of money and it is still incorrect to say obama care will cost more money.

Gorfias:

arbane:

1: I was unaware that the existence of Social Security precluded all other investments that could be passed down.

Irrelevant. My money, let me do as much as possible with it as I like. Under your plan, I have less discretion.

I remember reading a while back about some elderly fellow who sued to get his pension as one lump sum rather than an annuity. A few months later, after he'd lost it all gambling, he sued his old job again for failing to stop him from winning the first lawsuit, or something.

But hey, I'm perfectly OK with you investing your pension money in Enron, as long as you're OK with being put on an ice-floe and set adrift when it turns out you're not as smart an investor as you thought.

For Mammon's sake, I've explained this to you already. Try and retain this historical fact in the part of your brain that normally holds Democratic misdeeds from the 1950s: The whole POINT of Social Security is so that old people have a financial backstop the next time their investments turn out to be Dutch tulips, as keeps happening repeatedly in the stock market.

Gorfias:

ITMT: I may have snipped someone. The left wants the rich guys tax breaks to expire. I write I don't as, people like Warrren Buffet will still pay less than his secretary % wise. We need real reform

Explain to me the bizarre 'logic' that makes you think the Republicans have a better chance of giving you this 'reform' that Democrats, given (among other things) their insistence that the ultra-rich Job Creators (tm) must NEVAR have their taxes raised and the fact that I don't remember anything even remotely resembling tax reform during the Bush Junta.

Gorfias:
For starters, Social Security. I'd like to see the cut off greatly increased. I think they stop taking contributions at $80K. I'd like to see that bumped up to $1 million... if you cap it at all. I'd like it taken from all income including capital gains. Were that done, it would be relatively single rate, there would be no dodging it, and I think Social Securities solvency issues would no longer be relevant. Never going to happen though.

The question was what you think Obama should pay for through some means other than taxes as that appeared to be what you were suggesting.

And like the moyal says (repeating myself here) you can cut 10% off anything, including our military.

One cannot simply cut one's way to prosperity.

If Romney is elected, lets see how he does. Don't raise taxes, don't increase the deficit. If he is like other Republicans, he is likely to disappoint, but at least he is making promises. I don't get that from the Left.

What has he promised specifically.

That is a big problem for me as well.

And unfortunately, Romney appears to be a part of that problem. We already know he has a Swiss bank account, which is a tax shelter. Which means he's looking for ways to get out of paying taxes. When he then turns to the public and offers to do away with such things, it feels... insincere.

Sorry for short reply, under the gun, but something to chew on:

arbane:

I remember reading a while back about some elderly fellow who sued to get his pension as one lump sum rather than an annuity. A few months later, after he'd lost it all gambling, he sued his old job again for failing to stop him from winning the first lawsuit, or something.

Guy that screamed at me for thinking at an outrage I thought Obamacare would cost anything also angry about social security. Arguably, it exists because, like this old man, we can't be trusted with our own money. But in the 1960s its credits were placed on the books by the Democratic party. The money is being used in the general fund. And now I'm told if things continue in this manner, it won't be there for me. (I'm told by a thread member that at its worst, 75% should still be there. We'll see.)

Gorfias:
Sorry for short reply, under the gun, but something to chew on:

arbane:

I remember reading a while back about some elderly fellow who sued to get his pension as one lump sum rather than an annuity. A few months later, after he'd lost it all gambling, he sued his old job again for failing to stop him from winning the first lawsuit, or something.

Guy that screamed at me for thinking at an outrage I thought Obamacare would cost anything also angry about social security. Arguably, it exists because, like this old man, we can't be trusted with our own money.

I don't know about you being trusted with 'your own money', but I rather think Wall Street has proven conclusively that THEY can't be.

major28:

Seanchaidh:

major28:
I agree that police force should charge more than cost. Ideally I would like to see the police force be privatized.

Why do you think that would be better?

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

Responding to an earlier point which may or may not have been settled already. Given that this is an internet message board, my money is on "may not"...

See, the problem with that whole argument is that America has experienced the effect of privatizing out the delivery of what is now taken a civil-function. Ahead of the Civil War many leading American cities had a disjointed series of private semi-volunteer fire brigades. These brigades were established and competed with each other - particularly in cases where properties burning down were insured by one of the relatively new property insurance companies.

These volunteer brigades would often try to delay or fight off "competing" brigades in order to secure rights to put out a fire. There are numerous stories of violent confrontations taking place between rival crews rushing to get dibs on an fire.

Only problem with all this competition is the fact that for every minute the crews were sabotaging each other the... ****ing properties it was their "jobs" to protect were burning down...

A great example of some of the sheer absurdity of this system can be dredged up from reading about William "Boss" Tweed. Tweed started his political career as a volunteer member of Americus Fire Company No. 6, of New York and Newark. He went on to be the "boss" of Tammany Hall.

The situation with these volunteer fire brigades got so out of hand that many cities had to forcefully disband them all together and reestablish them under a single publicly funded fire department. New York, for example, established its fire department in 1865. The only real place in which volunteer fire departments functioned well were in smaller communities were there was a specific lack of competition between rival "companies" and brigades.

How about privatizing services related to security? Do private contractors actually reduce the total cost of logistics and supply chains? According to the Armed Forces Journal: "No, not really." Does the use of private contractors in domestic environments make us safer? According to RAND's analysis of the Olympic's security challenges - nope...

* Links are a couple of resources I found in 3 minutes of Google searching. Nothing too robust.

clangunn:

major28:

Seanchaidh:

Why do you think that would be better?

I think it would be similar to how it is now, but with competing police forces which I believe would increase efficiency. I also see it's potential for horrible corruption.

Responding to an earlier point which may or may not have been settled already. Given that this is an internet message board, my money is on "may not"...

See, the problem with that whole argument is that America has experienced the effect of privatizing out the delivery of what is now taken a civil-function. Ahead of the Civil War many leading American cities had a disjointed series of private semi-volunteer fire brigades. These brigades were established and competed with each other - particularly in cases where properties burning down were insured by one of the relatively new property insurance companies.

These volunteer brigades would often try to delay or fight off "competing" brigades in order to secure rights to put out a fire. There are numerous stories of violent confrontations taking place between rival crews rushing to get dibs on an fire.

Only problem with all this competition is the fact that for every minute the crews were sabotaging each other the... ****ing properties it was their "jobs" to protect were burning down...

A great example of some of the sheer absurdity of this system can be dredged up from reading about William "Boss" Tweed. Tweed started his political career as a volunteer member of Americus Fire Company No. 6, of New York and Newark. He went on to be the "boss" of Tammany Hall.

The situation with these volunteer fire brigades got so out of hand that many cities had to forcefully disband them all together and reestablish them under a single publicly funded fire department. New York, for example, established its fire department in 1865. The only real place in which volunteer fire departments functioned well were in smaller communities were there was a specific lack of competition between rival "companies" and brigades.

How about privatizing services related to security? Do private contractors actually reduce the total cost of logistics and supply chains? According to the Armed Forces Journal: "No, not really." Does the use of private contractors in domestic environments make us safer? According to RAND's analysis of the Olympic's security challenges - nope...

* Links are a couple of resources I found in 3 minutes of Google searching. Nothing too robust.

Idk what your point is with all this, I already admitted that the possibility for corruption exists.

major28:

Idk what your point is with all this, I already admitted that the possibility for corruption exists.

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to directly rebut your point. I was using your post as merely an example of a sentiment I have run into repeatedly. That privatization, regardless of functionality, is a good thing due to competition somehow equating to inefficiencies. That's the point I was trying to address.

You were actually quite open minded in directly addressing that the possibility for corruption is high in privatization systems.

clangunn:

major28:

Idk what your point is with all this, I already admitted that the possibility for corruption exists.

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to directly rebut your point. I was using your post as merely an example of a sentiment I have run into repeatedly. That privatization, regardless of functionality, is a good thing due to competition somehow equating to inefficiencies. That's the point I was trying to address.

You were actually quite open minded in directly addressing that the possibility for corruption is high in privatization systems.

Hooray I'm open minded! That is not something I hear very often, lol.

Also captcha: lolly pop... sweet

that section is taken completely out of context. He was referring to the government infrastructure (ie Roads) that all businesses use. those small businesses didn't build the roads they travel on. That's why paying taxes is important, it gives back to the system that you used to great benefit.

Long story short: we need to work together, because together we are stronger.

hardlymotivated:
Get your canaries ready, boys. We're goin' quote mining.

Love it, love it, love it.

OT: At the moment, with the amount of foul play done by the republicans, Obama could drop a nuke on London (I am in England) and i would still consider him a better candidate. Just, how can you trust a group of people willing to deform the truth with protecting it?

Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business. Sure the workers help but without me they would be flipping burgers. I had the idea, I took the loans, I pay the bills, I pay the taxes, I OWN THIS MOTHERFUCKER.

Capcha "Send Packing"

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business. Sure the workers help but without me they would be flipping burgers. I had the idea, I took the loans, I pay the bills, I pay the taxes, I OWN THIS MOTHERFUCKER.

Capcha "Send Packing"

And you managed to skip 15 pages of post, the OP itself 'and' the speech.

Go off to Off-Topic if you want to reply to the tit--- No wait. Its not even allowed there.

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business.

Goody for you. Obama never said you didn't.

Are you for real? Did you literally skip over 15 fucking pages of discussion regarding this blatantly out-of-context quote mining to give yourself a pat on the back?

Donuthole:

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business.

Goody for you. Obama never said you didn't.

Are you for real? Did you literally skip over 15 fucking pages of discussion regarding this blatantly out-of-context quote mining to give yourself a pat on the back?

Republicans, Ladies and Gentlemen!

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business. Sure the workers help but without me they would be flipping burgers. I had the idea, I took the loans, I pay the bills, I pay the taxes, I OWN THIS MOTHERFUCKER.

Capcha "Send Packing"

On that note, there's an economic fallacy I'd like to clear up. Entrepreneurs do not create jobs. Corporations do not create jobs. Rich people do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. All that businesses do is cater to a demand. They are a reaction to the market.

DrVornoff:

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business. Sure the workers help but without me they would be flipping burgers. I had the idea, I took the loans, I pay the bills, I pay the taxes, I OWN THIS MOTHERFUCKER.

Capcha "Send Packing"

On that note, there's an economic fallacy I'd like to clear up. Entrepreneurs do not create jobs. Corporations do not create jobs. Rich people do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. All that businesses do is cater to a demand. They are a reaction to the market.

If I were gay I would be so gay for you after that comment, since you are EXACTLY right.

DrVornoff:
...there's an economic fallacy I'd like to clear up. Entrepreneurs do not create jobs. Corporations do not create jobs. Rich people do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. All that businesses do is cater to a demand. They are a reaction to the market.

Yes! You are so bloody correct!

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business.

No you didn't.

Reginald:

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business.

No you didn't.

This is the kind of thing anti-Obama people wish that Obama had said.

He may have started and built his business, but he didn't do it without help, help from those before him and around him. Help from a culture/society/whatever that made building something like this possible for someone. That is the intended message most people, including Obama, are trying to convey here, not "No you didn't build your business at all."

Gold:

Reginald:

JWAN:
Actually, I'm pretty sure I did build my business.

No you didn't.

This is the kind of thing anti-obama people wish that Obama had said.

He may have started his business and built it from nothing, but he didn't do it without help. Help of those before him and around him.

Yeah, the guy probably didn't raise the cows, kill them, then turn them into the burgers that the employees now flip. I'd be surprised if he supplies his own gas and electricity, too.

Reginald:

Gold:

Reginald:

No you didn't.

This is the kind of thing anti-obama people wish that Obama had said.

He may have started his business and built it from nothing, but he didn't do it without help. Help of those before him and around him.

Yeah, the guy probably didn't raise the cows, kill them, then turn them into the burgers that the employees now flip. I'd be surprised if he supplies his own gas and electricity, too.

I was actually reprimanding you for the blunt way you said "No you didn't".

Maybe I should be clearer in future.

Gold:

Reginald:

Gold:

This is the kind of thing anti-obama people wish that Obama had said.

He may have started his business and built it from nothing, but he didn't do it without help. Help of those before him and around him.

Yeah, the guy probably didn't raise the cows, kill them, then turn them into the burgers that the employees now flip. I'd be surprised if he supplies his own gas and electricity, too.

I was actually reprimanding you for the blunt way you said "No you didn't".

Maybe I should be clearer in future.

I just thought it'd be funny to be blunt. I'm still laughing, myself.

Today's Krauthammer column targets the "You Didn't Build" that speech.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313558/case-against-reelection-charles-krauthammer

Chuck is no fool. I think he thinks like me. I think he is writing to people that think like us. Obama may not have meant it, but we think we know what he did mean, and find it just as destructive, arrogant, dangerous and wrong headed.

My point is, and was throughout this thread: this statement matters. I think everyone understands what it means. It crystallizes our thoughts. We're either for it or against it.

Interesting point by Chuck. He thinks Romney wants to run on "competence" rather than ideology. He notes,"In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, "This election is not about ideology; it's about competence." He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama's deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn't-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day."

I think it should. Then, as a people, we can pick a direction.

Gorfias:
Interesting point by Chuck. He thinks Romney wants to run on "competence" rather than ideology. He notes,"In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, "This election is not about ideology; it's about competence." He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama's deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn't-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day."

I think it should. Then, as a people, we can pick a direction.

Or you could try voting based on actual principles instead of saying, "Well, fuck that guy."

DrVornoff:

Gorfias:
Interesting point by Chuck. He thinks Romney wants to run on "competence" rather than ideology. He notes,"In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, "This election is not about ideology; it's about competence." He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama's deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn't-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day."

I think it should. Then, as a people, we can pick a direction.

Or you could try voting based on actual principles instead of saying, "Well, fuck that guy."

I think that is what me and Chuck are writing about.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313558/case-against-reelection-charles-krauthammer

If, from that clip, you think, like Chuck, that Obama is giving his heart felt belief, and you like that, vote accordingly.

But if Romney just wants to say "me to, but I'll govern more competently" we are not getting a clear non "fuck" it choice in which case, he, Romney, should and likely will lose.

For that reason, "you didn't build that" matters.

Gorfias:
For that reason, "you didn't build that" matters.

No, it really doesn't. The outrage is entirely manufactured. And frankly, I think Krauthammer is overtly full of shit. Even when criticizing Republicans, he has to say the Democrats suck even more.

It's kind of like Romney's, "I like to fire people," thing. I know what he meant. And I'm not voting on that soundbite. I'm voting on the fact that he's a lying sack of horseshit who has no values he's willing to stand by in an election, is horribly out of touch with the middle and lower classes, has no foreign policy qualifications, his tax plan is a fucking scam, and his claims of being a businessman hold about as much water as a sieve. Obama's got a few points that I like, and a lot that I don't, but at this point you could have a capuchin monkey run against Mitt Romney and I would still vote for the monkey.

DrVornoff:

Gorfias:
For that reason, "you didn't build that" matters.

No, it really doesn't. The outrage is entirely manufactured. And frankly, I think Krauthammer is overtly full of shit. Even when criticizing Republicans, he has to say the Democrats suck even more.

LOL, that is sort of Sowell's quote. You've likely seen me write it before. "The only reason to vote Republican are Democrats."

Sorry you disagree about the quotes materiality. I thought I knew what his speech was about from that clip, and I thought the same thing after others on this board gave me greater context about the speech. I think Charles Krauthammer agrees with me, as likely are his readers.

Gorfias:
Today's Krauthammer column targets the "You Didn't Build" that speech.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/313558/case-against-reelection-charles-krauthammer

Chuck is no fool. I think he thinks like me. I think he is writing to people that think like us. Obama may not have meant it, but we think we know what he did mean, and find it just as destructive, arrogant, dangerous and wrong headed.

My point is, and was throughout this thread: this statement matters. I think everyone understands what it means. It crystallizes our thoughts. We're either for it or against it.

Interesting point by Chuck. He thinks Romney wants to run on "competence" rather than ideology. He notes,"In 1988, Michael Dukakis famously said, "This election is not about ideology; it's about competence." He lost. If Republicans want to win, Obama's deeply revealing, teleprompter-free you-didn't-build-that confession of faith needs to be hung around his neck until Election Day."

I think it should. Then, as a people, we can pick a direction.

Well, that's pretty unsurprising. The horribly out-of-context quote mined lie is all your shit-ass excuse for a party has to go on.

DrVornoff:

Gorfias:
For that reason, "you didn't build that" matters.

No, it really doesn't. The outrage is entirely manufactured. And frankly, I think Krauthammer is overtly full of shit. Even when criticizing Republicans, he has to say the Democrats suck even more.

It's kind of like Romney's, "I like to fire people," thing. I know what he meant. And I'm not voting on that soundbite. I'm voting on the fact that he's a lying sack of horseshit who has no values he's willing to stand by in an election, is horribly out of touch with the middle and lower classes, has no foreign policy qualifications, his tax plan is a fucking scam, and his claims of being a businessman hold about as much water as a sieve. Obama's got a few points that I like, and a lot that I don't, but at this point you could have a capuchin monkey run against Mitt Romney and I would still vote for the monkey.

Mitt Romney has absolutely no principles save one, and that principle is that Mitt Romney really, really wants to be President.

He's the worst candidate of my lifetime. And that includes Dukakis and Mondale.

Gorfias:
Chuck is no fool. I think he thinks like me. I think he is writing to people that think like us. Obama may not have meant it, but we think we know what he did mean,

I like how you got called for pages and pages on telling this lie, that Obama meant something other than what he said, and then you just laid your head low for a few days and brought it up again as though nothing at all had been said.

"That's the spirit! If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through." - General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett

He thinks Romney wants to run on "competence" rather than ideology.

Then he's nothing but a partisan hack. It's been patently obvious from the get-go that Romney is making no effort to demonstrate his own confidence and his entire campaign revolves around pushing a narrative that Obama's ideology is somehow radically different from his own. Even if that narrative is 100% fiction.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked